Rockets

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr McAsh, > I hope you had a good summer. > > I am just wondering if you had any thoughts on the > LTN review data that was published by the council > last week? > > The constituents within the review area have, > overwhelmingly (64%), voted for the measures to be > removed yet the council is suggesting amendments > to the current closures that will do nothing to > alleviate the problems the measures have created. > > It is clear, from the council's data published in > the review, that there has not been the > "significant reduction in traffic across the > Dulwich area" as you claimed in your recent > newsletter. The council is claiming a 10% > reduction in traffic across the area but the > monitoring data from roads like Underhill (which > is a key displacement route) has not been > published or included which means that the 10% > figure is likely to reduce to closer to 0% once > that data is included. > > Could you summarise what you believe the benefits > of the scheme to date have been as it is unclear > to me, from reading the report, what they are? The > measures have had more than enough time to bed in, > yet: > > - Pollution has not decreased (in fact it is > likely to have increased) > - Modal shift has not happened (the report admits > that cycling numbers are now decreasing to > pre-Covid levels) > - Displacement roads are more congested > - Bus journey times have increased in many parts > of the area > - Local businesses are being impacted negatively > as is the attractiveness of the area as a shopping > destination > - Emergency service response times have been > impacted by the closures and lives have been put > at risk > > It is clear the council has failed to deliver > against the stated objectives for these measures > so why are you continuing to pursue them and for > whose benefit exactly? It seems the majority of > your constituents are being impacted negatively by > them and don't want them. Cllr McAsh - just popping this to the top of your inbox - you seem to have missed this when you were posting yesterday.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced > for that purpose by the Major government, and > subsequently increased by Blair. > As you will remember, there were large-scale > protests and it was scrapped. > > I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As > with any of these measures, the discomfort is > never evenly spread. It would be effective though. Agree. Means-tested road pricing is the only fair way forward. It also hits the delivery and logistics companies hard forcing them to change bad practices. Look what happened when we had an inadvertent road pricing example initiated by fuel shortages - car usage dropped because people questioned whether they really needed to make that journey in their car/by car.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sally buying Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > legalalien Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > > > should have done before and after counts in > > the > > > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > > > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have > been > > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and > are > > > now overflowing. > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > > > > > > 921565908992 > > > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first > > place when they were built? > > > > Without knowing this the above has no meaning. > > > As I said in my original post - the bike sheds > were made about four times bigger than they > originally were. > You could count the bikes in the picture which are > under the storage area and divide by four to get > the original > capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times > bigger - and overflowing. > > I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my > original post? And this is brilliant - it is great to see more kids cycling to and from school but the council can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those children were being driven previously. Given the catchment area of Charter North is very small I suspect the majority of that transition to cycling is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would disagree but let's not go there!).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in > London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to > nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads > remained relatively stable in the same period. > Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge > displacement on to side streets. Where?s the > outrage over this, significant ?displacement?. I don't think there is outrage over it because those stats, which are touted exclusively by the pro-LTN groups, don't stack up. Look at what you said. You're saying that traffic on sideroads has almost doubled yet traffic on main roads remained stable. So, the only conclusion there is that there must have been an almost doubling of the number of vehicles because those extra journeys on side roads have to come from somewhere and if levels are stable on main roads then you can't claim these are people rat-running. Car ownership in London is declining. Van ownership and PHV ownership is rocketing on the back home deliveries and private hire vehicles and those two things are not deterred by LTNs - the journeys still happen. It's clear that's where the increase on side roads is coming from and the main catalyst is not apps such as Waze as you claim.

Legal - I completely agree. The council's approach should have been a targeted roll-out of the school streets programme (and they needed to get the private schools on board but I know the relationship between them and the council has been strained due to some council member's ideological views on private schools) allied with a programme of segregated bike lanes and building the infrastructure to support modal shift (more bike storage for those who don't have anywhere to store their bikes, more places to secure bikes on Lordship Labe etc etc etc). Instead they put all their energy and money into the flawed LTN programme that has utterly failed, divided a community (well divided suggests a 50/50 split so maybe I should rephrase that as turn the majority of the community against the measures) and made the very problems they were trying to solve even worse.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we should allocate as much space as possible to > cars, across as broad an area as possible. No > attempt to create quieter routes. > > The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the > last few years caused by navigation apps must > continue. With luck we can ensure every road is > equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for > everyone. > > People who have no option but to walk and cycle > because they don?t own a car should get one (even > if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue > signalling?. > > All the research suggest that making driving > easier increases the amount of driving. Literally > all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick > holes in individual studies or data sets, and > ignore the emerging picture across a growing body > of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that > making driving as convenient as possible (and > walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe) > will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all > for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it? Rahx3 - I am not sure that is virtue-signalling. Virtue signalling would be, I don't know, cycling towards the Court Lane/DV junction, seeing a group of elderly people protesting against the closures and taking umbrage that a couple of their bags were blocking a small part of the junction and then coming on here and moaning about how dangerous it was. P.S. did you see the complete blockage of the same junction during the recent Margy Party in the Square? I am presuming not because you didn't come on here and moan about it dangerously blocking your cycle route.....;-)

If that is the council strategy then we are done for - 50 kids a generation in the Dulwich area - it's going to take 10 lifetimes! ;-) All joking aside we were sold the myth that LTNs create traffic evaporation. They don't. The council can't prove that the LTNs have delivered any traffic evaporation at all so, instead they herald an "increase" in cycling. That increase in cycling was in play before the LTNs went in and the catalyst for it was the lockdown (and of course cycling levels have now declined to below pre-pandemic levels invariably because we are not in lockdown anymore, life is returning to normal yet people aren't cycling into their offices or places of work as much as they used to because of the shift to working from home on a permanent basis). Now the council desperately clings to that cycling up stat to validate their continued persistence with the flawed LTN strategy. A large percentage of that "growth" is derived from pupils cycling from Dulwich to the plethora of schools in the immediate area and only if those journeys used to be made by car (and I am not convinced many of them were) can it be considered a win for the LTNs.

Yes it is - the threshold is beyond Calton as you head towards the lights. I noticed recently that they have painted Bus Gate on the road - I don't think that has been there that long has it? I wonder if that is in relation to the Tribunals upholding the appeal and this is the council trying to fix the issue. Surely if one is upheld on the basis of incorrect or vague signage and then the council takes remedial action then a precedent has been set and all of the fines should be refunded for that junction? Lots of residents have been telling the council that the signage was not clear enough and it was confusing yet it seems only the threat of tribunals cutting off their cash cow is the catalyst for action!

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The data was from June 2021 - before everyone was > back in office and the raw data on numbers has not > been released. There really is very little > validated proof that LTNs have delivered on > reducing pollution, car-use, traffic and increases > in active travel outside of the year on year slow > increase in cycling. > If it did work and traffic, pollution and active > travel did increase as proven by validated and > significant data showing positive change, with no > confounding variable such as a PANDEMIC and > LOCKDOWN, I would be the first to support. > > But they do not - traffic and pollution increased > on ED Grove and Croxted, LL - slower buses and > pollution levels increased. > > It isn't a difficult concept to understand, unless > one's fundamental beliefs are a block to looking > at actual evidence. Or one just has a gated road, > an increase in house price and doesn't actually > care about pollution at all. And what is confusing me about the data is that on the interim report the council said that traffic was down across Southwark by 12% and that across the whole Dulwich area it was down 16% but by the time of the final report that reduction in traffic had raised to 10%. So does that mean traffic is actually up in Dulwich compared to the rest of Southwark?

Rahx3 - don't go there - we really don't need another thread of people tearing the council's "count" methodology apart. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, made the point. You might believe the stats/propaganda the council puts out to justify their LTNs - there are many more who don't. It's interesting to see above that Rachel Aldred is now saying that LTNs are being removed without sufficient monitoring on the impact on walking and cycling. Firstly the claim is wonderfully hypocritical and galling given the woefully inadequate (probably deliberately so) monitoring that was done before and after the LTNs went in to assess the impact on displacement from the LTNs and the collateral damage that was being done. I do agree with her though that there needs to be an assessment on the impact on walking and cycling - in terms of how much of the increase in cycling has been from walking or other active travel modes. The "growth" figures touted by the council on the increase in cycling in Dulwich is being driven, in the main, by the private school triangle around Dulwich Village - the majority of those cyclists are kids from DC, Dulwich Prep, JAGs, Alleyns and Dulwich Hamlet (I know that is a state school before someone choses to correct me) and are coming from Dulwich and I would hasten to guess that they were not being driven prior to the LTNs going in (or if they were it was a tiny percentage). Of course, any active travel journeys are good and it is great to see kids cycling to school but it is not good if they aren't replacing car journeys - which the LTNs are supposed to target. So maybe the council or TFL can commission Rachel Aldred to do some more research to determine how much of the claimed growth to active travel is actually from journeys that were previously done in a car.

DC - I suspect everyone on this forum can relate to that - we have all made those changes - it's why 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were already active travel in 2018 and I suspect the % was even higher before the pandemic and higher again post pandemic. We are all doing our bit yet the council decides to deploy measures that create big increases in traffic and pollution for those who are already doing what they can to embrace active travel. The LTN stick being wielded by the council is hitting those who have already embraced active travel the hardest and that is not right. And for what end? The results from the council's flawed and distorted review are hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of LTNs (and the council has obviously worked hard to try to create some sort of upside to the LTNs). LTNs remain a very blunt and ineffective instrument in the fight against climate change and none of them have come close to delivering what the council(s) promised they would deliver. They know they aren't working, we know they aren't working, even the LCC know they aren't working. Which makes you wonder why they can't admit defeat.

Mops - I am afraid there isn't any clear direction from the council stating what the rules are - at least I am not aware of a single site that makes it clear what can and cannot happen. They are relying on the signage they have put up all around the area to "alert" drivers (but this has been criticised as unclear by many residents and also a fine tribunal who overturned some fines on the basis of confusing/unclear signage). SO it will depend where you are coming from and at what time, but there are no restrictions on Eynella for either driving or parking (although the council did state they wanted to try and put some in).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at the photo. Very clearly there are people > blocking anyone turning right from the main road > into Calton Ave. > > They could have had their protest without blocking > people using the supposedly ?closed? road. But > they wanted to get lots of honks from those > driving by, whilst they called for less car > pollution and protested restricting access as they > blocked those turning right. With no sense of > irony. Rahx3 - we can only presume you weren't trying to cycle through Margy Square at the weekend as that band playing in the road was blocking the road far more than the aged protestors a couple of weeks ago you were complaining about...

Don't we all. But unfortunately the only way to get it in Southwark is to move to street within the LTN area. And the irony is the majority of people who live within the main tranche of the LTN closures around Dulwich Village don't want it either as they know that whilst they live with less traffic and less pollution someone a few streets away has to live with more. LTNs are so flawed that the council hasn't even been able to convince the people benefitting from them the most that they are a good thing......

Northern - my bad I missed that passing reference to the Underhill data collection on Page 34 of the main report as I was looking at the Traffic Flow analysis and Data collection timings detailed reports - neither of which even mention Underhill Road or Barry Road. That's a bit odd is it not? Any idea why there is no reference to Underhill or Barry Road in the main detailed reports sharing the data they collected via monitoring? It seems as if they have done a cursory - "Underhill went up 3%" but not given any further info to back-up that claim - they don't even detail when the pre-Covid data was collected.

DC - two things: Firstly, the council stated in their interim monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2% increase compared to the borough average? Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the council's monitoring data is incomplete - no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is one of the key displacement routes for traffic trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam. Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was vital that monitoring should have been included in the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council produced. The council didn't add them - I wonder why not? The council was forced to add monitoring to Underhill by irate residents who had seen they were planning not to count there during the review and promised to include the data in the review. I wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into an increase.

18 months in and there is not a sign that what you say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't evaporate it displaces. LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, frivolous car usage must go Given the LTNs were designed to eliminate frivolous car use, after 18 months of them being in I think we can safely assume that either 1) there wasn't much frivolous car use in the area or 2) they don't eliminate frivolous car use. Either way there is a strong argument for removing them and starting again with something far more fit for purpose.

P3girl - do keep us posted on the council's feedback to your budget submission - it will be very interesting to see how Southwark responds! Also refreshing to see a local interest group that doesn't block responses to tweets like your good friends at Clean Air Dulwich do! I am getting to the point of exasperation with the council and might superglue myself to a cycle lane until the council starts taking note and addressing our concerns! The good thing about gluing ourselves to cycle lanes is we won't be blocking emergency services and putting lives at risk like Insulate Britain and Southwark council do in their efforts to deal with climate change ;-)

I do worry that there are now too many outlets selling the same/similar thing. I do know that if the sun isn't shining and the weather lovely then there isn't enough trade to go around between the existing ones yet alone with a new one adding yet more competition. Maybe this is part of the Southwark Labour grand plan - they want to, ahem, gentrify Dulwich Village and fill it full of coffee shops and estate agents!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In case anyone wants to comment > > https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment > -leisure/goodrichreview/ > > Consultation closes 17 October. You wonder whether it is worth it. On the one hand if you tell them what they don't want to hear they will ignore you. Even when you do do respond positively to something that aligns with their agenda (Dulwich Village ATM removal) they grandstand and claim victory for doing something they didn't actually manage to achieve! Makes you wonder what the purpose of consultations actually is.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here?s the formal decision on the revised Dulwich > proposals, includes a summary of responses > received on the revised proposal > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1020 > 48/Record%20of%20Decison.pdf > > Come on LDs on the scrutiny commission - call it > in for further discussion on the decision making > process! How can we leverage the LDs to do something? I know they support the strategic intent of the LTNs but can't be happy with the way Labour have handled the consultation. Can James Barber help provide some info on who to try to influence on this? This borough council desperately needs some vocal opposition.

Otto2 - nice in theory, completely impractical in practice. Granted, local deliveries can be done by the Pedal Me teams but a house move on a bike - what are they moving, a wendy-house - there's reason removals lorries are as big as they are? There is not an increase in private cars in London. In fact, private car ownership continues to fall in the capital - even the Guardian admits as much - it is the rise of Uber and delivery vehicles that are causing the problem (the article stats van journeys in London are up 25%): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever This is why blocking the roads with LTNs makes the problem worse as delivery drivers have to navigate around closures - they still make the journey. And people are returning to public transport - quicker than anyone expected. I have been very surprised how busy the tubes have been, especially at weekends, the past few weeks. Confidence in public transport is returning. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58360193

I wouldn't worry - as long as none of your neighbours complain I am sure you will be fine.

Rahx3 - did you read the article beyond the headline? It's often a good idea to, especially with Guardian articles.... ?The massive increase in traffic on C roads is probably due to a combination of home shopping and van-based home services,? said King. The greater use of satnavs to avoid traffic congestion was also a likely factor, he said. Personally, I think home deliveries are probably the biggest contributor - granted Waze etc do not help but they still tend to take people down what used to be known as rat-runs - they don't just direct people around side streets for the sake of it. If I remember rightly, the biggest increases in vehicle type on London roads have been seen in delivery vehicles - vans etc. On the subject on other LTNs does anyone know how the LTN's the Guys and St Thomas' Trust were funding are going as they were doing proper analysis on things like displacement?